[Rocco]

[ QUOTE ]

Q,T adds no certainty to this hand on either side. His uncertainty that our hand has improved is countered by our mirrored uncertainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with both players being uncertain about eachother's hands? If you raise the flop, he can narrow down your range pretty much and fold if he thinks you will stick by your top pair. You mentioned checking down if he elects to call your flop raise and that you might fold to a large turn/river bet if unimproved. What if Villain knows senses that based on reads? When he calls your flop raise, he has narrowed down your range a lot, and you know nothing about his hand. He could have a monster, but he could also be calling with any two cards, knowing he can exploit your tendency to fold later and drag a nice pot with a pure bluff.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you speak confidently about how a range of players would play an unimproved pair, or an improved pair. Lots of good players try to suck out pieces with an improved premium hand in this manner -- disguising one's hand is not just for donks. Just as lots of mediocre players will 1/2-2/3 pot bet all streets with an unimproved high pair, if for no other reason than they're afraid to face an overbet.

I don't think you can confidently say that a clear minority of good players try to move all the chips in with an improved premium hand, just as you can't confidently say that a clear majority of mediocre players with an unimproved high pair will give up after the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

No-one can do this confidently, but based on reads and experience from similar situations, we can relate different holdings to different actions, and we are able to do it with good precision. Further action allows us to narrow down his hand range even more... But since you're under the assumption that "dynamic hand reading is vastly overvalued", I feel it's no use in trying to convince you into thinking the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]

Calling the flop does nothing to protect our hand. We let villain control the action when we have a hand that is very unlikely to improve.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is it wrong to let Villain control the pot and continue putting chips without knowing what we have? If Villain has a hand that we beat, he is just as unlikely to improve as we are. Only thing is, we don't have to improve, because we have him beat.

You said Bond et al can't see the forest for all the trees, I say it's the other way around. You are too [censored] obsessed with your I-have-already-won-my-expected-share-thinking that you can't see any other way to play than just raise the flop and end it right there. That line is utterly stupid. If you can gain more chips from your opponent by calling, of course you should do so. I don't think betgo posted this hand because he thought his flop play was wrong.